Why is the Daily Mail showing awful ISIS pictures?

Telling is one thing.
Constant pictures is not.

I dont see anyone complain about all the other papers who dont show the pictures.
If the pictures are so important, why is no one complaining about the papers that they read? And their online papers?

absent you are right; unpleasant though it may all be, we need to be told what atrocities other human beings are capable of. The footage of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, for example, is the most valuable tool to demonstrate the horrors of the holocaust.

We cannot wrap ourselves in metaphorical cotton wool.

FlicketyB, even reading this thread, you will see that I am not.

absent, my imagination is more than good enough for that. I would rather not have your gruesome words either.

soontobe How good is your imagination about someone being beheaded? It doesn't happen instantly with one clean cut and can take five, six or more blows with a sword, especially by an "amateur". I'm sure most of us don't want to watch anything so horrendous, but that, of course, is not what appears in the newspapers. (After all, it's not a Harry Potter movie where the newspapers have a kind of video.) If it makes us feel sick, keeps us awake at night and gives us nightmares when we do sleep – well, so it should. We are part of the human race and need to be aware – and active – about what other members of the human race may be doing.

soontobe I think you are the exception, not the rule. For most people out of sight is out of mind.

eugh. I wouldnt watch television or read newspapers in that case. I would turn to radio instead.
Even I have enough imagination to not need to see stuff.

I was thinking though, that I dont know the parties' stance on IS. But that could be my fault, as I am slowly switching myself off from all the election coverage. I have reached my personal saturation point.
But it does seem to me that none of the parties has ISIS very high up its agenda. And it should be imo.

our television and newspapers are very mealy mouthed and over cautious compared with other countries over showing what the terrible violence in the world actually means to its victimes.

If the media had the courage to show what the violence of ISIS and others means to people present and what was actually done to our hostages more people might demand that we do more to actively help the victims and start resolving the problem. Politicians are driven by what the public wants, and if the public demand more be done more would be done.

In answer to someone's question: the ruling family of Qatar 'fund' Al Jazeera.

[The email addresses dont appear to be working. hmm].

www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-299115/Contact-Daily-Mail-Mail-Sunday.html

The pictures did seem to be less horrid. But it has been ramping up again.

If anyone is interested at all, this is their contact link.

I think what newspapers decide to publish, or not publish, isn't really going to stop ISIS showing the west the full extent of the horrors they perpetuate, they are completely in charge of exactly what they put out there and what medium they choose for this. Seemingly none of that can be stopped. I'm not sure a lot of their target audience engage with newspapers anyway. Would the three recently departed London girls have read any anti ISIS articles, it seems that their negative depiction in the press didn't affect their decision to go to Syria.

I'm just surprised the other newspapers didn't show the pictures. They're not usually that slow in coming forward!

I don't honestly think our media fans the flames for these people. They have got an aim and they want to warn the locals to keep out of their way. (And the rest of the world come to that)

At least the DM actually mentions that the atrocities are going on - the BBC seems to be more concerned about the ancient artefacts that are being destroyed than the human lives that are being lost.

I have very mixed feelings on the showing of horrific photos. We're not used to it, so it shocks us all the more when we do see them.
Sometimes, that shock helps to drive home the reality of a situation, but if we were subjected to it all the time, wouldn't we risk becoming hardened to it?

Before reading a paper, I often glance through it quickly, and sometimes a heading catches my eye that effects me as much as a photo would, and I make a deliberate point of not reading that article as I already know how much it would upset me. An example of that was the burning alive of the Jordanian hostage by ISIS. I had already been deeply upset by it when I'd heard about it on the TV, and just seeing the heading made me feel sick.

Actually, I just made the big mistake of Googling this to check that I had the right nationality of the hostage, and have been subjected to photos of it that I would rather not have seen- they have upset me, but possibly not any more than those original headlines did - they both provoke an awful feeling of sorrow, anger and dispair!

It can go horribly wrong for those trying to help Very sad.

It does seem that by publishing the graphic photos, the DM does seem to be dancing to ISIS' tune.... after all, if no one around the world knew exactly what they were doing, would they be so keen on doing these attrocities - albeit they are barbaric people whichever way you look at it.

I agree that a picture tells a 1000 words.

But dont get why the DM seems to be the only paper daily shoving lots of graphic ones in our faces.
Having now compared the paper today to others today, I have now realised that it seems that all the other online ones are less graphic.

I also now think, like vegasmags and others say, that the paper is or has become sensationalist.

jingl She has grown into a lovely young woman.

However, they have refined the formula for napalm to make it even more effective.

I have just looked, again, at the picture of the little girl and other children, running from their burning village at the time of Vietnam. So upsetting.

Cruel, evil, war.

For years I read the Guardian but then changed to the Times, as I began to feel that most of the Guardian reporters were 35 or less, and that the paper seemed to devote many pages to lifestyle trivia in which I am not interested. The Daily Mail is a sensationalist rag so of course they publish graphic images. The Times, by contrast, showed a few weeks ago a haunting photo of a young gay man about to be thrown from a high building by masked Islamic state extremists, commenting that his body landed yards from where two other men were being crucified. Like Alfred Hitchcock films, it was not necessary to show the acts themselves to get the point across.

absent - I think I read that somewhere. I remember going round the Assyrian/Babylonian rooms in the British Museum, in their own way as impressive as the Egyptian antiquities, but whilst we are lucky to have museum pieces, most of the statues and buildings are best left in situ in the country from whence they came. How awful to eradicate works of art thousands of years old that are part of the historical evolution of that place. Where would we be without our Stonehenge and everything that come after.

TerriBull Not all of the rich Assyrian cultural heritage has been destroyed; some has been sold to fund IS. It is not clear who is buying these artefacts.

I tend to get 4 papers up on line, DM, DT, The Independent and The Guardian and we buy The Times occasionally during the week and always on Sundays. I have to agree soontobe the ISIS stories are gruesome, graphic and shocking. I think I read somewhere, when pictures were shown of one young man was being hurled off a building, there is a group within Raqqua, not supporters of ISIS, who want the outside world to know exactly what is going on there. Whilst it's horrific to have these images come right up at you from a daily newspaper. I also think Jinglebellsfrocks has made some valid points in that we need to know just how vile and oppressive ISIS are and yes I also agree it's unfortunate that we went in to fight the wrong war which most of us didn't want. It was pointed out to Blair and Bush by many, get rid of one dictator, and there will be a void and that void will be filled, possibly by something worse, but they didn't listen. In my opinion western intervention has proved to be catastrophic.

Meanwhile when ISIS aren't trying to wipe out the wrong kind of Sunnis, Shias, Christians, Yazidis, gays, smokers, kite flyers, women in make up not covered in two black tents or anyone they suspect of collaborating with Assad, they are trying are doing their best to destroy all the marvellous antiquities that tell the world about that region's rich Assyrian cultural heritage, thousands of years old. Tragic!

Does anyone else remember the film of a Vietnamese man being shot in the head shown on the BBC news during the Vietnam War? That and the little girl on fire after napalm was dropped on her village proved to me that sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

Thank you Leticia!

I have now been online of the 5 newspapers.
I could only find 1 awful picture in the Daily Mail. I couldnt look at absolutely all of the pcitures of the others, but didnt see anything graphic at all.
[The Guardian and the i I couldnt navigate well, because I currently have slow broadband?]

I was surprised at how nice some of the other online newspaper sites looked.

absentgrandma. Yes, I assumed that all the newspapers may have the same sickening IS pictures as the Daily Mail produces daily, but I now dont think they do.
So why does the Daily Mail feel the need to do it?

People who regularly read their printed version. Are there usually daily graphic pictures in it. Or are they just mainly online?